Has this issue really changed that much from pre-internet days? Workers often spent a lot of time by the water cooler chatting with each other. And how many are taking several smoking breaks throughout the day?

It comes down to managers managing their staff and looking for problems and taking appropriate action when the non-work activity gets out of hand. (re: productivity, security, HR policy)

- Kurt

Bob, your first line is right on target: "What percentage of the workday..?"
The fact that the vast majority of the sites were non-work related is irrelevant if they only represent 1% of the workday.
It reminds me of anti-drug messages from the 1970's. "90% of all heroin addicts started with marijuana." What percentage of marijuana users went on to use heroin was never considered. The best response I heard to that was "100% of all heroin users began on milk."
Or to relate it back to this question: what percentage of internet usage (not sites visited) IS work related?
That is the more meaningful "statistic."

Reviewing internet usage for abuse is indicative of another more serious issue--a lack of active supervision at the level where work is performed.

I wrote the Internet policy at one 5,000+ employee firm which operated 24/7 in 26 states with less than a dozen people assigned to each location. Our policy was clear about what was permitted and what was not, following the usual "no running your own business, viewing porn, betting, harrassing, etc on our computers" line of thinking, but first line supervisors at all levels were the enforcement authority. We never ran into a problem of inappropriate use creating an issue; supervisors did what they were paid to do--manage their people's activities.

I've also seen the ugly side of Internet monitoring systems, namely employees are afraid to use the Internet for appropriate business needs needs in case "someone questions why I was there" or blunt-force filters using keywords blocking out useful sites such as those dealing with human anatomy.

In one instance where we took care of thousands of disabled adults, "blunt force" blocking or cultural issues would have created a serious situation when reference material could not be accessed.

In a second case, I was on one panel eleven years ago which found an Internet filter in use blocked any searches based on the word "suicide" at a time when we were trying to reduce the # 2 killer of our employer's people, namely suicide.

I it pretty easy for we in IT, and the powers that be for that matter, to resort to "locking things down" or whatever, as a way to control employee behavior. Of course, it doesn't really work. And even if it did, it would only be addressing a symptom of the real problem - that staff in general don't feel much of a stake in an organization's success.

Real leadership can't be automated. But effective staff development, mentoring, delegation and team-building are painful to develop, at least at first. And so they are very rare.

One of my business pet peeves is people using words that don't actually mean anything. "Mature" is one such word. Although I don't like buzz words, "actionable" is a wonderful buzz word and telling someone to be mature or to "grow up" is not actionable.

Exactly what is the problem and what action should employees take? Should they never go to non-work related sites? I agree with Bob that if employees are working 60+ hours a week they should be able to watch Youtube videos on their lunch hour. So is the problem that they should only be going to certain sites at certain times?

Perhaps the people making policies could decide what their goal is, why they have that goal, and then communicate it to the employees. "Mature" and "adult" have no place in the policy. Tell people what is expected and why and maybe you'll get it.

I believe you completely nailed this one, Bob!

The CIO of the company I work for has a pretty simple way of looking at it: if you can surf the web or otherwise take care of non-company-related tasks during work hours and still get your job done, then there's no problem. Just as you point out, for many people who work here--just as with much of corporate America these days--work doesn't end just because they are not in the building. Many people take work home on a daily basis or connect from home to continue working.

If you are not getting the job done, it doesn't matter if the reason you are not is, you spend too much time doing other things such as playing on your computer. The bottom line is simple: do the job you are paid to do and the company for which I work will not trouble you with overly parental or controlling or invasive attitudes about how you are spending your time. In my opinion, it's a smart way to run a company.

The firm I work for enforces strictly that employees cannot use their workstations to browse the internet for personal reasons. It doesn't matter if we work more than 40 hours - we are forbidden from sending and receiving personal e-mails and from internet browsing using the company's workstations. They tell us this as a condition of providing internet access and the resulting penalty is employee termination. There are people that lose their jobs over this; even if they do this during lunch or after hours.

Bravo, Dr. Bob. For most part, never really understood why this was a technical issue rather than a management one. If an employee isn't productive and *excessively* abuses a technology (phone in the pre-PC days, take your choice of software now...), then its up to the manager to take corrective action with that employee. The technology may change but the dynamic hasn't.

You could argue that there's more risk now with software than someone abusing phone priviledges in the 70s, but why not recognize that and install a standard corporate IM client (for example) you can keep tabs on.

Wasn't that long ago that there was a big furor over whether all employees should have e-mail and the risks posed by those who used a terminal to access e-mail via Pine, etc. And while there's virus outbreaks from time to time, that one seems to have worked out OK -- who doesn't have e-mail at work these days?

You are SO right. I always react with glee when I see a sensible professional remembers that companies which demand "above and beyond" the 45 hour, in-the-office, normal work routine, performance as a bare minimum for either a standard, or slightly above standard compensation package. (I'm excluding execs who get perks to make 80 hour work weeks worth it.)

IMHO America will eventually follow Japan into the abyss of increasing mail heart trouble and what not, if we continue to view 24/7 Blackberry leashes and "workends" to be normal. Myself, I just stepped down from a team lead role that was 95% manager duties, plus my usual team participation duties, and oh every few days helping my PM with something or other. Did I feel guilty spending a few minutes a day reading my Yahoo! mail? Nope. Woot.com with my morning latte. Not a problem. Telecommute from home and check on servers? Fine. It all balanced out ... for a while.

Both David's & Mike's posts just above remind me of two stories.

Mike reminded us about excessive phone use, a topic that for years has been dealt with by reports from our phone switches. At my prior job, we had a receptionist who spent most of her day on the phone with relatives. When the regular phone guy was out I was given the task of downloading the phone report, which I made an extra copy of. Later I checked our receptionists usage and found she spent 7+ hours a day talking to relatives - And all of it was Long Distance.

David's comment reminds me of our former company nurse. She spearheaded to managment the issue that our people were working too hard, too long and paying a physical price. She gathered the data showing how many people were literally hauled out on stretchers by 911 and how this was way beyond normal stats. Pushing this issue is how she got to be the former nurse.

Bob, your view strikes me as entirely reasonable: treat people like adults, and expect them to behave like adults. And give some leeway to people who give more than they are required.

I would add though, that sometimes people goof off not because they aren't mature. It can be a sign of burnout or boredom, or some other deeper problem.

I had one employee who, after a few years of brilliant, creative work, started goofing off on the job. It was very unusual for him, and I was puzzled. It turned out that he had routinized nearly every part of his work, in some cases with tools he had developed himself. He had no backlog. He was bored and unhappy. I gave him the most challenging, imaginative work I could find, and made some of his procedures SOP, and marketed them outside my department even.